Have a personal or library account? Click to login
Comparison of conventional Doppler imaging techniques and superb microvascular imaging in determination of vascularization in undescended testes Cover

Comparison of conventional Doppler imaging techniques and superb microvascular imaging in determination of vascularization in undescended testes

Open Access
|May 2023

Figures & Tables

Fig. 1.

Right testis in the medial section of inguinal channel was demonstrated by grayscale ultrasonography and testicular volume was calculated (A, B). No spot color encoding (SCE) and linear flow color encoding (LFCE) counts were observed in CD (C). In PD (D) and cSMI mode (E) one LFCE was observed. In mSMI; two LFCE and three SCE were observed, as shown with arrows (F, G). (CD: color Doppler; PD: power Doppler; cSMI: color superb mıcrovascular imaging; mSMI: monochrome superb microvascular imaging; SCE: spot color encoding; LFCE: linear flow color encoding)
Right testis in the medial section of inguinal channel was demonstrated by grayscale ultrasonography and testicular volume was calculated (A, B). No spot color encoding (SCE) and linear flow color encoding (LFCE) counts were observed in CD (C). In PD (D) and cSMI mode (E) one LFCE was observed. In mSMI; two LFCE and three SCE were observed, as shown with arrows (F, G). (CD: color Doppler; PD: power Doppler; cSMI: color superb mıcrovascular imaging; mSMI: monochrome superb microvascular imaging; SCE: spot color encoding; LFCE: linear flow color encoding)

Testes of operated 44 patients (OUT, testes having contralateral inguinal canal distal placement under follow-up and contralateral normally located testes) in terms of age, volume, and SCE-LFCE numerical values_ (SCE: spot color encoding, LFCE: linear flow color encoding, CD: color Doppler, PD: power Doppler)

Operated UDT (44)Inguinal canal distal under follow-up (7)Normal contralateral testicle (27)
Age (months)74.06 ± 56.1754.57 ± 45.0660.2 ± 42.3
Volume1.31 ± 3.120.60 ± 0.140.74 ± 0.28
CD-SCE0.50 ± 1.620.001 ± 0.0010.70 ± 2.27
-LFCE0.16 ± 0.570.001 ± 0.0010.22 ± 0.97
PD-SCE1.09 ± 2.400.001 ± 0.0011.33 ± 2.71
-LFCE0.34 ± 0.800.14 ± 0.380.89 ± 1.55
cSMI-SCE1.68 ± 4.250.001±0.0013.25 ± 8.99
-LFCE0.47 ± 1.130.001±0.0011.11 ± 2.21
mSMI-SCE6 ± 6.582.14 ± 1.467.78 ± 14.08
-LFCE1.61 ± 1.820.43 ± 0.533.26 ± 3.62

Age, volume, and CDIT-SMI numerical values of testes according to the groups_ (SCE: spot color encoding, LFCE: linear flow color encoding, CD: color Doppler, PD: power Doppler)

Group AGroup BGroup C
Age (months)74.06 ± 56.1759.95 ± 40.9383.48 ± 76.80
Volume1.31 ± 3.120.56 ± 0.312.74 ± 5.15
CD-SCE0.50 ± 1.620.16 ± 0.481.62 ± 2.71
-LFCE0.16 ± 0.570.04 ± 0.200.24 ± 0.61
PD- SCE1.09 ± 2.400.54 ± 0.985.43 ± 7.84
-LFCE0.34 ± 0.800.25 ± 0.740.77 ± 1.01
cSMI-SCE1.68 ± 4.251.0 ± 2.215.92 ± 10.33
-LFCE0.47 ± 1.130.5 ± 0.980.68 ± 1.20
mSMI-SCE6 ± 6.583.54 ± 2.9010.68 ± 14.28
-LFCE1.61 ± 1.821.75 ± 1.452.27 ± 2.22

UDT testicular volumes and mSMI numerical values were compared_ When volume values increased, mSMI SCE and LFCE values were significantly increasing (correlation coefficient form SMI SCE: 0_312; correlation coefficient form SMI LFCE: 0_365)_ No significance was observed between mSMI numerical values of the post-operative period and age at operation

mSMIPost-operative periodAge at operationVolume
-SCEp = 0.914p = 0.728p <0.001
-LFCEp = 0.006p = 0.698p <0.001

Age, volume, and Doppler numerical values of all undescended testes (newly diagnosed and follow-up undescended testes) (SCE: spot color encoding, LFCE: linear flow color encoding, CD: color Doppler, PD: power Doppler)

Inguinal canal proximal (n = 6)Inguinal canal medium (n = 18)Inguinal canal distal (n = 15)Scrotal (n = 98)
Age (months)39.00 ± 22.3665.16 ± 40.7760.40 ± 42.6478.03 ± 68.35
Volume0.27 ± 0.080.56 ± 0.260.57 ± 0.272.74 ± 5.15
CD-SCE0.001 ± 0.0010.22 ± 0.550.001 ± 0.0011.10 ± 2.38
-LFCE0.001 ± 0.0010.05 ± 0.240.001 ± 0.0010.21 ± 0.68
PD- SCE0.001 ± 0.0010.61 ± 1.090.20 ± 0.413.33 ± 6.13
-LFCE0.001 ± 0.0010.39 ± 0.850.001 ± 0.0010.68 ± 1.01
cSMI-SCE0.66 ± 1.630.94 ± 2.410.33 ± 0.724.14 ± 8.78
-LFCE0.50 ± 1.220.33 ± 0.680.20 ± 0.770.73 ± 1.45
mSMI-SCE2.66 ± 2.344.11 ± 2.953.80 ± 5.298.62 ± 12.45
-LFCE1.16 ± 1.471.66 ± 1.610.93 ± 0.962.31 ± 2.50

Testes included in the study according to localization, operation history, and grouping of testes_ UDT was classified as inguinal canal proximal, inguinal canal medium, and inguinal canal distal_ Control group including contralateral normally located of OUTs, follow-up UDT and control group of normally located bilateral testes

Testicular localizationGroupTotal n (%)
OUTScrotalAn = 44 (24.31%)
Newly diagnosed UDT (n = 24), (13.26%)Inguinal canal proximal (n = 6) (15.39%)Bn = 39 (21.55%)
Follow-up UDT (n = 15), (8.29%)Inguinal canal medium (n = 18) (46.15%)
Inguinal canal distal (n = 15) (38.46%)
Contralateral normally located of OUT (n = 27), (27.56%)ScrotalCn = 98 (54.14%)
Contralateral normally located of UDT ((n = 5), (5.1%)
Bilaterally normal testes (n = 66), (67.34%)
Total (n = 173), (100%)Scrotal or inguinalA + B + Cn = 181 (100%)
DOI: https://doi.org/10.15557/jou.2023.0013 | Journal eISSN: 2451-070X | Journal ISSN: 2084-8404
Language: English
Page range: e66 - e72
Submitted on: Dec 21, 2021
|
Accepted on: Jan 31, 2023
|
Published on: May 11, 2023
In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services
Publication frequency: 4 issues per year

© 2023 Fatih Ates, Mesut Sivri, Mehmet Sedat Durmaz, Tamer Sekmenli, Metin Gunduz, Ilhan Ciftci, published by MEDICAL COMMUNICATIONS Sp. z o.o.
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License.